Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 073

joh*** argues there is a traffic/stability campaign to keep Geyer/Goveman aligned while participants pursue 853N money requests rather than victim posture. Community statements, not court findings.

joh*** claims guidance was routed through the Guo mailbox, with people in the 6000-group not admitting victim status, and says defense counsel could not properly use even true materials from these participants. Community statements, not court findings.

joh*** argues some represented by counsel claim to be third parties while others file 853N claims directly, with some using a remission-style petition form instead of consistent victim framing. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** argues that 853 is for money and CVRA for procedure, and says both can move simultaneously. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** claims 853N ended on Oct 22, 2025 and cannot be refiled, saying that deadline is often overlooked. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** asks when 853N is considered to end or restart, disputing the current timeline. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** argues the alliance-lawyer relationship is unclear, and sharing materials with counsel may effectively move control to the alliance. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** contends that directing victims to defense counsel can be framed as plaintiff-defense collusion and may nullify their motions. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** claims the proxy counsel was never clearly identified, so counsel identity remains in question. Community statements, not court findings.

joh*** disputes KK-style claims of no victims, arguing defense counsel in 789 discussed qualification validity, not whether victims exist at all. Community statements, not court findings.

joh*** contends that third-party 853N and CVRA attempts were blocked from speaking in second review, presenting it as a strategy to bury the case in that district. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claims the dispute is really about prosecutorial violations rather than a pure victim-label argument. Community statements, not court findings.

joh*** asks directly whether the 134 alleged victims might withdraw their cases. Community statements, not court findings.

beg*** claims that if only a few among the 134 remain, they become individually vulnerable targets, and references 789 as a model for such vulnerability. Community statements, not court findings.

beg*** argues some already contacted Guo’s former counsel without meaningful follow-up, and that current counsel should require the 134 to rebuild the facts correctly before a possible re-interpretation phase. Community statements, not court findings.

chu*** contends coalition-led letters and 853N court contact may mislead members, risk evidence contamination, and require fully independent action. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** asks whether counsel should be told to withdraw and whether filing 853N now is still useful. Community statements, not court findings.

hel*** claims 853N can still be pursued at this stage. Community statements, not court findings.

hel*** asks who can help fill self-prosecutor complaint materials, indicating demand for filing support. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** argues against collective form-filling and says members should rely on prior group discussion before handling materials. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** claims everyone represents themselves and each filing should remain independently based. Community statements, not court findings.

beg*** asks whether prior discussion correctly predicted mandatory orders being rejected in second review and what would follow. Community statements, not court findings.

kir*** claims the process could later proceed to the Supreme Court. Community statements, not court findings.

kir*** claims Torres’ team appears confused about the pathway. Community statements, not court findings.

chu*** claims a video source was shared to support the ongoing argument. Community statements, not court findings.

chu*** shares a social post as additional reference material for the dispute. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claims unclear points should be checked via bots. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** asks how a court would distinguish conspiracy-driven complainants from non-conspirators in each case. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claims some participants may be acting independently after their own reasoning. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** argues that filing against the alliance farm should be treated as separate from alliance-linked influence. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** argues that 853N may be reopened later. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claims 853N is currently closed, but re-entry could occur if it is reopened. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claims CVRA can still be used as a fallback reference path. Community statements, not court findings.

joh*** argues investors may be mis-targeting defendant focus and should pursue claims against the alliance farm’s misappropriation, treating themselves mainly as third-party 853N claimants rather than registered creditors. Community statements, not court findings.

kir*** claims the proper path could be government remission. Community statements, not court findings.

kir*** claims uncertainty remains and says he is not sure. Community statements, not court findings.